MRCSP Phase I Geologic Characterization Report - Midwest ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

140 CHARACTERIZATION OF GEOLOGIC SEQUESTRATION OPPORTUNITIES IN THE <strong>MRCSP</strong> REGION EXPLANATION 500 ft Index contours M A R Y L A N D 100 ft contours Thickness in feet 1500 0 O U T C H E S U N I T P I N 0 500 1000 1500 20 10 0 20 40 Miles 25 12.5 0 25 50 Kilometers ³ Figure A17-5.—Map showing the thickness of the Waste Gate Sandstone.
APPENDIX A: LOWER CRETACEOUS WASTE GATE FORMATION 141 Table A17-1.—Summary of depth, thickness, porosity, permeability and salinity of the Waste Gate Formation (adapted from Hansen, 1982) Well Name Depth (ft.) Thickness (ft.) Estimated Estimated Salinity Sandstone Permeability (equivalent NaCl) Porosity (%) (millidarcies) (parts per million) DOE Crisfi eld Airport 3,900-4,225 325 24-27 1 75-120 3 33,700 5 63-122 4 72,000-80,000 6 J & J Taylor 4,975-5,915 940 21-24 1 29-63 4 24,700 5 91,300 6 Ohio Hammond 4,745-5,360 615 23-27 2 49-122 4 50,400 5 53,700 6 Socony-Mobil Bethards 5,020-6,565 1,545 19-24 2 16-63 4 70,200 5 97,400 6 Esso Ocean City 5,670-7,180 510 19-24 2 16-63 4 73,800 5 94,300 6 1 Compensated formation density log method 2 Short normal electric log method 3 Pumping test 4 Schlumberger formula 5 Self-Potential method 6 Resistivity method clayey confining bed. As a consequence, the isolation of an individual sand can never be assured. In practical terms the waste disposal reservoir should be viewed as including not only the injection zone, but one or two adjacent sands as well. Because the Waste Gate Formation is hydrologically isolated from the shallow fresh-water fl ow system, this contingency should not preclude waste injection unless local conjunctive use of the Waste Gate is anticipated. By restricting injecting pressures to 0.64 psi/ft, the minimum pressure gradient at which hydraulic fracturing theoretically occurs, Hansen (1982) has estimated that a 75-foot thick Waste Gate sand could be expected to accept a waste stream of 30 to 115 gpm for fl uids ranging in viscosity between 1 to 2.2 centipoises. Pretreatment of the waste prior to injection may be required to prevent deterioration of formation permeability due to precipitate reactions between waste water and the formation water and matrix. For example, certain types of acidic wastes may react with the feldspathic aquifer material . . . producing clays that might reduce aquifer permeability near the disposal well. At the very least entrained gasses and suspended solids must be removed from the wastewater prior to injection. Hansen (1984, p. 20) concluded that the hydrogeologic setting of the Waste Gate Formation is suitable for liquid waste disposal. Transmissivity and storage properties should be sufficient to accept wastewater in economic volumes within prescribed injection pressures. Thirty to 115 gallons per minute of liquid waste could be injected into typical Waste Gate sandstone without fracturing the rock or its confining beds. By increasing the number of sandstone beds within the injection target, larger volumes of liquid waste should be able to be injected with no adverse affects.
Page 1 and 2:
Characterization of Geologic Seques
Page 3 and 4:
ABOUT THE MRCSP The Midwest Regiona
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS About the MRCSP ..........
Page 7 and 8:
CONTENTS Figure A14-2.—Structure
Page 9 and 10:
1 CHARACTERIZATION OF GEOLOGIC SEQU
Page 11 and 12:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3 (a minimum
Page 13 and 14:
INTRODUCTION TO THE MRCSP REGION’
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROCEDURES, DATA S
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
OIL, GAS, AND GAS STORAGE FIELDS 27
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
CO 2-SEQUESTRATION STORAGE CAPACITY
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
CONCLUSIONS AND REGIONAL ASSESSMENT
Page 55 and 56:
REFERENCES CITED 47 National Confer
Page 57 and 58:
49 APPENDIX A Geologic Summaries of
Page 59 and 60:
APPENDIX A: PRECAMBRIAN UNCONFORMIT
Page 61 and 62:
APPENDIX A: CAMBRIAN BASAL SANDSTON
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
APPENDIX A: BASAL SANDSTONES TO TOP
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
APPENDIX A: UPPER CAMBRIAN ROSE RUN
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
APPENDIX A: KNOX TO LOWER SILURIAN
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
N T R APPENDIX A: KNOX TO LOWER SIL
Page 89 and 90:
APPENDIX A: MIDDLE ORDOVICIAN ST. P
Page 91 and 92:
-6000 -8000 APPENDIX A: MIDDLE ORDO
Page 93 and 94:
APPENDIX A: LOWER SILURIAN MEDINA G
Page 95 and 96:
APPENDIX A: LOWER SILURIAN MEDINA G
Page 97 and 98: APPENDIX A: LOWER SILURIAN MEDINA G
Page 99 and 100: APPENDIX A: LOWER SILURIAN MEDINA G
Page 101 and 102: APPENDIX A: NIAGARAN/LOCKPORT THROU
Page 103 and 104: APPENDIX A: NIAGARAN/LOCKPORT THROU
Page 105 and 106: A APPENDIX A: NIAGARAN/LOCKPORT THR
Page 107 and 108: APPENDIX A: MIDDLE SILURIAN NIAGARA
Page 109 and 110: -3000 APPENDIX A: MIDDLE SILURIAN N
Page 111 and 112: APPENDIX A: LOWER DEVONIAN MANDATA
Page 113 and 114: APPENDIX A: LOWER DEVONIAN ORISKANY
Page 121 and 122: APPENDIX A: LOWER DEVONIAN SYLVANIA
Page 123 and 124: -2000 APPENDIX A: LOWER DEVONIAN SY
Page 125 and 126: 25 APPENDIX A: LOWER/MIDDLE DEVONIA
Page 127 and 128: APPENDIX A: DEVONIAN ORGANIC-RICH S
Page 135 and 136: ( ( ( ( APPENDIX A: PENNSYLVANIAN C
Page 137 and 138: APPENDIX A: PENNSYLVANIAN COAL BEDS
Page 143 and 144: APPENDIX A: LOWER CRETACEOUS WASTE
Page 145 and 146: APPENDIX A: LOWER CRETACEOUS WASTE
Page 147: APPENDIX A: LOWER CRETACEOUS WASTE
Page 151 and 152: APPENDIX A: REFERENCES CITED 143 Sa
Page 153 and 154: APPENDIX A: REFERENCES CITED 145 an
Page 155 and 156: APPENDIX A: REFERENCES CITED 147 lo
Page 157 and 158: APPENDIX A: REFERENCES CITED 149 Pa
Page 159 and 160: APPENDIX A: REFERENCES CITED 151 Th
show all

MRCSP Phase I Geologic Characterization Report - Midwest ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?